New Delhi, Nov 20 (IANS): The Supreme Court took exception to counsel Prashant Bhushan's comment that it was hesitant in taking action against Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati, but later Wednesday accepted his apology that he did not intend to lower the esteem of the court or hurt judges.
The apex court bench of Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph hearing the matter of irregularities in coal allocation, capped the controversy as it recorded Bhushan's statement: "I have highest regard for the court and if the statement of mine has hurt the court, I apologise."
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Lodha said that when the extracts of the interview by Bhushan to a news magazine were brought to their notice, they were deeply disturbed. More so, because such a statement came from an arguing counsel and that too Bhushan.
"I don't know what you said... (but) when it came to our notice it disturbed us," said Justice Lodha.
"It has deeply disturbed us" when it was alleged that "the bench is hesitant to take a call", he said.
Justice Lodha said the judges live up to their oath as they dispense justice.
"It is extremely difficult for us to work" as "so many legal and factual issues come before us", the court said as Bhushan sought to assuage the court by offering "profuse apology" if his statement had hurt the court.
"I profusely apologise for the hurt my statement has caused", Bhushan told the court as it said that coming from "lawyers like you, it really hurts us. Once arrow goes out of hand, it is difficult to retrieve it".
On Bhushan's statement that judges were diffident in pulling up the attorney general because of their social interaction, Justice Lodha said, "I don't know if you know how much we are cut off from social life" and except on occasions of functions "we don't get to meet people and even there it is confined to greeting only".
The court recorded the statement of Bhushan as PIL petitioner lawyer M.L. Sharma insisted that the court should proceed against him or seek a written apology.
As a caution that someone may not move a contempt petition at a later stage, the court asked Bhushan to make a statement that was recorded in the order.
The court had taken a suo motu cognizance of Bhushan's interview to a news magazine where, in response to a question as to why the court had not pulled up the attorney general, Bhushan said: "I can only speculate. The bench is possibly hesitant about taking action against the highest law officer of the government who is appearing before them every day."
"Perhaps they are meeting him socially and you do tend to be a little diffident in cases involving such people."
The question was rooted in the controversy when Vahanvati's statement before the court that he had not seen the status report of the CBI's investigation into the coal scam was later found to be not factual.
This led to difference between the attorney general and then additional solicitor general Harin Rawal and Rawal's resignation.